Gestión de la convivencia escolar en la I.E

As this thesis explores the concept of dialogue and the ways in which

individuals and groups learn and form ideas through sustained interactions, I locate myself within a constructivist epistemology that emphasises the

importance of social construction of knowledge. This was related to my emphasis on dialogue as well as interest on individual motivations and perceptions.

Theories of dialogue, such as those presented by Buber and Freire, also emphasise a subjectivist epistemology subjectivist epistemology where ‘the knower and respondent co-create understandings’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p.

33). Buber and Freire differ, both propose that people come to understand the world through categories and knowledge transmitted through social

relationships but that through these relationships people can also change their surroundings and realities.

In this research, I take a dialogic approach to knowledge, drawing from what de Sousa Santos (2002) calls ‘diatopical hermeneutics,’ where theories are not viewed as complete, concrete entities and that each culture, place and time has its own topoi that it draws from which can be used to enhance one another. This is similar to Freire’s (1997, p. 92) concept of ‘epistemological encircling,’ a strategy of understanding something’s true nature by contrasting with what it is not. In a study on dialogue, this type of epistemological

bricolage (Levi-Strauss, 1966) is necessary to piece together information in complex situations (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008) and also allows for theories to be applied and understood in diverse contexts. This thesis’ interest in

understanding dialogue necessarily impacted my engagement with theory and the decision to allow different theories from various regions to dialogue with each other as opposed to remaining fixed in one approach or tradition, which also enabled me, through a dialogue with my own findings, to focus on both Martin Buber and Paulo Freire as theories of dialogue.

This epistemological approach inherently affects the researcher’s own

attitudes and stances in the field and requires acknowledgement of the many differences between my own beliefs and those of participants and

collaborators. This approach leads to greater respect for indigenous knowledges (Berryman, SooHoo, & Nevin, 2013), hopefully minimising Freire’s (1972) concept of colonial privilege and de Sousa Santos’ (2014) notion of ‘epistemicide,’ or the minimisation of indigenous knowledge by Western theory and theorists. This approach was essential, since many participants were aware of and angered by inequalities and the disrespect of Ivoirians and Africans by Europeans. For example, Serge, a participant in agoras introduced in Chapter Five, told me that Ivoirians ‘want to share with everyone. But we don’t like people talking crap, we don’t like when people take the piss out of us. Voilà. Because what you know, I know.’ Serge wanted to express to me that although I was European, with a university degree and with my own beliefs, this did not make me, or my knowledge, superior to local knowledge.

Validating different ways of knowing and expressing knowledge became integral to both conducting research and analysing data. For example, agora participants were often well versed in Marxist theory and this framed their world view and view of knowledge (more discussed in Chapter Six).

Additionally, participants often explained that being an eye-witness constituted one of the most important ways of knowing and thus also impacted upon participants’ strategies for seeking information within grins or agoras. Being not only aware but able to engage with these different frames of knowledge enabled me to be a more effective researcher in a different cultural context where questions of power and inequality were at play. This epistemological stance then contributed to the choice of a qualitative research methodology and ethnographic methods, as detailed in the following sections, and to the theories presented in Chapter Two.

Methodology

The research’s rationale and questions, lend themselves to a qualitative, in-depth study focused on lived experiences in micro sphere settings and on observing the world in its most natural state. More so, an emphasis on dialogue required a methodology that considered the importance of my

interactions with participants and that allowed an open-ended, evolving design.

For this reason, I selected a qualitative methodology which relied upon on interviews and participant observation, a method allowing me to engage in dialogue with participants and to attempt to embrace their experience (Buber, 1958). As described above, the research questions deal primarily with the role of dialogue for members of discussion spaces. The questions examine the characteristics of the dialogue as well as the motivations and outcomes of participants and the potential for humanising dialogue and peace on a broader societal level. These questions, which investigate the phenomenon’s structure as well as the participants’ own perceptions of it, lent itself to a qualitative study. While a large-scale, quantitative study, or even a mixed-method study, could have been done with a broader survey of grins, it would have lost the rich description from ethnographic methods and would no longer impart valuable micro level information. Finally, as described in Chapter One, a primary rationale of this study was to provide much-needed and up-to date

information on the current state of grins and agoras and to examine

participants’ own views on their participation and outcomes which required attention to detail and immersion in spaces.

This methodology also responds to research needs within the domains of peace and education. Beckerman and Zembylas (2012, p. 38) claim that in research on peace education:

ethnographic thick description resonates with our complex experience….In our work we insist on the complexities of human interaction and emphasize the multiple contextual levels of analysis that need to be accounted for – i.e. micro-, mezzo-, macro-, exo.

This focus on the micro and macro, at the heart of understandings on dialogue presented in this thesis, could best be accomplished by in-depth observations, interviews and other tools described below. Similarly empirical research, as opposed to a purely theoretical study, is also required in

elucidating meanings of peace (Galtung, 1996, p. 22), which entails:

the never-ending exploration of the term ‘peace’, checking the discourses surrounding ‘peace’ for over- and under-emphasis, and particularly for subjugation of discourses. We must draw upon all meanings of ‘peace’ in all corners of history and geography, using fully the transnational nature of peace studies.’ …. theories-construction (plural) is an endless enterprise, and absolutely crucial to that spiral. Commentary, on the other hand, is less important.

Thus in this study on dialogue and peace, it is also important to gather these ground up experiences, and to use ethnographic data and local

understandings to guide the construction of knowledge and theory as well as policy and practice in the field.

This research was primarily influenced by the ‘extended case method,’ a qualitative methodology that provides researchers the basis to expand upon theory and to connect micro events of daily life to larger, macro theoretical questions through ethnographic methods. First developed by anthropologist Gluckman (1961) of the Manchester School, the method sought to respond to

the need to link ethnographic research at the micro-level to broader

theoretical questions. This approach was later brought to sociology primarily through the sociological research of Michael Burawoy at the University of California, Berkeley (1991, 1998, 2009) and Burawoy and Verdery (1999).

The extended case method seeks a fine balance between theory and lived experience and emphasises the use of participant observation and other ethnographic tools. Through immersion in the field and the examination of everyday life, inconsistencies or errors within theory emerge, in which case Burawoy suggests that ‘[w]e begin with our favourite theory but seek not confirmation but refutations that inspire us to deepen that theory. Instead of discovering grounded theory we elaborate existing theory’ (Burawoy, 1998, p.

16). Burawoy (2009) also suggests that one can consider several related theories and draw out, through the analysis, the most relevant. This methodology, first developed in former Rhodesia and used extensively in southern Africa also indicate its potential applicability within sub-Saharan African contexts. This approach to research complemented the study’s

objective which was to both give a descriptive account of the dialogue in grins or agoras but also to contribute to theoretical notions of dialogue through gaining an understanding of the spaces and thus naturally lead to a qualitative research design. Extended case method research has focused on issues of social justice, social movements, and violence in schools (Glaeser, 2005).

The research methodology chosen balances on the emic and the etic – drawing out information inductively but recognising the theoretical baggage that I carry as a researcher, unlike more purely inductive forms of research such as grounded theory (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009). Emic, or research taken from the perspective of the group, would be impossible as I am not an insider, yet a completely etic stance, as an outsider, would also not be appropriate, especially as I developed relationships and began participating more in grins and agoras. More so, I desired my study to have a strong link to the pursuit of social justice, human rights and equality as found in Freire’s and Buber’s work; a self-identified Marxist, Burawoy’s (2004) emphasis on ‘public sociology’ and the role of the ethnographer working towards these

overarching goals aided me in placing these concepts within the methodology

While my study does not take on action research or participatory action research, a methodology advocated by some critical pedagogues and

Freirean scholars (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Kapoor, 2009; Kemmis, 2006;

Kincheloe, 2009), a methodology that concerns itself with justice and social transformation complements the aims of the study and the notion of dialogue.

The extended case method also gave me a pathway to dealing with bias and identity in the research design (further discussed in the section on

Positionality) and my decision to undertake research in a country where I was an ‘outsider’. Burawoy views participant observation as a key research

method but also openly encourages reflection on how the researcher changes the setting. The researcher’s role therefore does not effect the validity of a study but rather supports the belief that researchers are engaged in ‘data generation’ as opposed to ‘data collection’ (Mason, 2002). This inductive approach was also appropriate given my personal relationship to the study.

Entering the field with a relatively open mind was an absolute necessity, given that I had never been in Cote d’Ivoire nor observed a street discussion space apart from online videos. Furthermore, the bulk of literature written on the topic was published pre-2011 or soon after the conflict so many factors remained unknown, including access to spaces, safety and the relevance of French as a language for observations and interviews. Thus reliance on a qualitative methodology that was relatively adaptable to the realities I encountered was of upmost importance.